Thomas Reid (1710-1796) was a Scottish philosopher and key figure
in the Scottish Common Sense School. He taught at Kings College Aberdeen before
succeeding Adam Smith as Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of
Glasgow in 1764. Reid is primarily known for the epistemological theory he
develops in response to the perceived failings of the 'way of ideas', the
position associated with the likes of Descartes, Locke, Berkeley and Hume that
claims that the immediate objects of perception are private mental items. Reid
takes Hume as demonstrating that such a perceptual theory leads to a complete
scepticism. As an alternative to this, Reid offers a direct realist
account of perception and argues that all first principles of common sense
stand on an equal footing – there is no reason to favour perception or reason
over testimony or the belief in an external world, for example. One other aspect of Reid's Common Sense theory that
continues to exert significant influence is his contra-casual account of human
agency.

Key works

Reid's three major works represent two periods in his intellectual life: his first important work, An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense (Reid 1764) was written during his time at Aberdeen; his Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (Reid 1785) and Essays on the Active Powers of Man (Reid 1788) reflect his work at Glasgow. All three works were included in Sir William Hamilton’s The Works of Thomas Reid (Reid 1846), though this has been superseded by the Edinburgh Edition of Thomas Reid, a projected 10 volume series published by Edinburgh University Press and Pennsylvania State University Press. The Edinburgh edition of the Inquiry, Reid 1997, is edited by Derek R. Brookes, the Intellectual Powers, Reid 2002, by Derek R. Brookes and Knud Haakonssen, and the Active Powers, Reid 2010, by Knud Haakonssen and James A. Harris.

Introductions

Lehrer 1989 is the only introductory text on Reid available at the present time, with an emphasis on Reid's epistemology. Wolterstorff 2001 provides an alternative, highly accessible discussion of his epistemological concerns. The papers in Cuneo & van Woudenberg 2004 cover a wider range of core themes from Reid’s writings, including his moral and aesthetic theories. Yaffe & Nichols 2009 is the best online overview.

I suggest two main ways of interpreting Reid's analysis of the perception of the quality of hardness: Reid endorses two distinct concepts of hardness. The distinction between the two lies in a profoundly different relation between the sensation of hardness and the concept of hardness in each of them. The first concept, which I term as a “sensation-laden concept”, is “the quality that arises in us the sensation of hardness.” The second concept, which I call a “non-sensational concept”, is “the (...) cohesion of the parts of the body with more or less force.” Reid is thinking like a developmental psychologist and postulates what I consider as a gradual development from one concept to the other according to which the initial sensation-laden concept of hardness, which we form during our early childhood, gradually develops into a mature non-sensational concept of hardness. (shrink)

I try to show that Berkeley's theory of ideas is not a variant of Locke's. We can find such an interpretation of Berkeley in Thomas Reid. So, we could call this interpretation a 'traditional interpretation'. This traditional interpretation has an influence still now, for example, Tomida interprets Berkeley in this line (Tomida2002). We will see that this traditional interpretation gives a serious problem to Berkeley (section 1). And I am going to present an argument against this traditional interpretation (section 2).

Ronald E. Beanblossom - Thomas Reid: Context, Influence, Significance - Journal of the History of Philosophy 44:1 Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.1 126-128 Joseph Houston, editor. Thomas Reid: Context, Influence, Significance. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press, 2004. Pp. 192. Cloth, $45.00. The impetus for this volume was a 1996 conference at Glasgow University marking the bicentennial of Reid's death. Topics addressed range from Reid's refutation of skepticism to M.A. Stewart's "Sources for Reid's Views on Personal Identity." Stewart is at (...) his best addressing Reid's indebtedness to Butler and Clarke on personal identity. What is not well developed are the arguments supporting Stewart's claim that in following the logic of Butler and Clarke, Reid fares no.. (shrink)

Thomas Reid, the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher, was concerned with the proper use of ordinary language. P. G. Winch would have us believe that in spite of Reid's concern for observing the ordinary meaning of terms, Reid did not know the ordinary meaning of 'suggest'. Not knowing this ordinary meaning, Reid allegedly changed it in violation of his own criteria. Against this view I argue (1) Reid uses 'suggest' in a technical sense and gives reasons for doing so; (2) contrary (...) to Winch's claim Reid does appropriately use 'suggestion' to describe perception. (shrink)

The controversy over the interpretative issue2014is Thomas Reid a perceptual direct realist?2014has recently had channelled into it a host of imaginative ideas about what direct perception truly means. Paradoxically enough, it is the apparent contradiction at the heart of his view of perception which keeps teasing us to review our concepts: time and again, Reid stresses that the very idea of any mental intermediaries implies scepticism, yet, nevertheless insists that sensations are signs of objects. But if sensory signs are not (...) mental intermediaries, what are they? Hasn't Reid merely swapped the common 'sensation' for the notorious 'idea', ending up with indirect realism?1 Current imaginative strategies answer negatively: Reid's sensory sign does not contradict direct perception, and those who think otherwise merely fail to understand what it means. (shrink)

What distinguishes Reidian externalism from other versions of epistemic externalism about justification is its proper functionalism and its commonsensism, both of which are inspired by the 18th century Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid. Its proper functionalism is a particular analysis of justification; its commonsensism is a certain thesis about what we are noninferentially justified in believing.

John Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities of objects has meet resistance. In this paper I bypass the traditional critiques of the distinction and instead concentrate on two specific counterexamples to the distinction: Killer yellow and the puzzle of multiple dispositions. One can accommodate these puzzles, I argue, by adopting Thomas Reid’s version of the primary/secondary quality distinction, where the distinction is founded upon conceptual grounds. The primary/secondary quality distinction is epistemic rather than metaphysical. A consequence of Reid’s primary/ (...) secondary quality distinction is that one must deny the original version of Molyneux’s question, while one must affirm an amended version of it. I show that these two answers to Molyneux’s question are not at odds with current empirical research. (shrink)

Summary The Introduction contextualises the development of Thomas Reid's Common Sense philosophy as the foundation for what would be known as the Scottish School of Common Sense. This introductory discussion of Reid's philosophical system bridges his thought in the Scottish Enlightenment with the special issue's focus of Scottish philosophy in the nineteenth-century Atlantic World.

I suggest a possible rehabilitation of Reid's philosophy of mind by a constructive use of Kant's criticisms of the common sense tradition. Kant offers two criticisms, explicitly claiming that common sense philosophy is ill directed methodologically, and implicitly rejecting Reid's view that there is direct epistemological access by introspection to the ontology of mind. Putting the two views together reveals a tension between epistemology and ontology, but the problem which Kant finds in Reid also infects his own system, as his (...) weaker ontological claims are undermined to such an extent by the necessary reintroduction of self-consciousness that the justification he seeks for reason fails to be reached epistemologically. Plausible solutions to these parallel tensions imply that both Reid and Kant have a pre-systematic concept of mind, and may lead to the conclusion that Reid's method is more economical in the elaboration of an ontology for the philosophy of mind. (shrink)

The doctrine of agent-causation has been suggested by many interested in defending libertarian theories of free action to provide the conceptual apparatus necessary to make the notion of incompatibility freedom intelligible. In the present essay the conceptual viability of the doctrine of agent-causation will be assessed. It will be argued that agent-causation is, insofar as it is irreducible to event-causation, mysterious at best, totally unintelligible at worst. First, the arguments for agent-causation made by such eighteenth-century luminaries as Samuel Clarke and (...) Thomas Reid will be considered alongside the defenses of agent-causation proffered in this century by C.A. Campbell, Roderick Chisholm, and Richard Taylor. It will be shown that the case for agent-causation made by these figures is ultimately unconvincing. Two defenses of agent-causation made within the past ten years will then be taken up for examination and critique. First, Timothy O'Connor's attempt at advancing an unrefined and unrepentant doctrine of agent-causation will be shown to suffer from the same maladies as its predecessors. Next, Randolph Clarke's causal agent-causal theory of free action, which seeks a via media between agent-causal theories of free action and causal theories of action, is examined. Clarke's theory is an attempt at providing an account of how both events and agents qua substances can be the codeterminants of free actions. Despite the improvement of Clarke's theory over more conventional agent-causal theories of free action, it will be shown that agent-causation makes his theory more cumbersome than it needs to be. Clarke is able to get as much mileage out of a causal indeterminacy theory of action that does not require him to posit obscure agent-causes. Finally, a sketch of an alternative theory of free action will be offered. While it may suffer from its own conceptual deficiencies, it may not suffer from the same conceptual problems as agent-causal theories of free action. (shrink)

There is a problem about the compatibility of Reid's commitment to both a sign theory of sensations and also direct realism. I show that Reid is committed to three different senses of the claim that mind independent bodies and their qualities are among the immediate objects of perception, and I then argue that Reid's sign theory conflicts with one of these. I conclude by advocating one proposal for reconciling Reid's claims, deferring a thorough development and defence of the proposal to (...) another paper. (shrink)

For Reid, the external senses have a “double province.” They give rise to both sensation and perception. This essay is about the relation of sensation and perception, a relation Reid’s sign theory of sensations describes. Drawing on Reid’s distinctions between general and particular principles of our constitution, relative and absolute conceptions, and original and acquired perception, the paper systematizes Reid’s sporadic comments on the sign theory. The aim is to offer an interpretation which reveals the overall structure, rationale and coherence (...) of Reid’s sign theory. (shrink)

1. Introduction. Like other direct realists, Thomas Reid offered an alternative to indirect realist and idealist accounts of perception. Reids alternative aimed to preserve the indirect realists commitment to realism about the objects of perception, and the idealists commitment to the immediacy of the minds relation to the objects of perception. Reid holds that what you perceive is mind independent or external; and your relation to such objects in perception is direct or immediate. In his own words, something which is (...) extended and solid, which may be measured and weighed, is the immediate object of my touch and sight. And this object I take to be matter, and not an idea (IP II xi, 154). (shrink)